Facebook's Lousy Facelift

How "Twitteriffic" is the new Facebook redesign? Imagine that Apple panicked over the press the Google G1 phone was getting last fall and abruptly decided to remake the iPhone in the image of its upstart competitor--dropping the most desirable features and adopting the G1's bigger bulk, smaller screen, skimpy memory, lack of apps, and mediocre interface. We all know that could never happen: Apple has too much confidence in its own market dominance and design brilliance to blink like that. Yet, incredibly, Facebook--until last week, the Apple of social-networking services--decided to react to the Twitter "threat" by trying to turn itself into its relatively puny challenger. It's like Meryl Streep getting plastic surgery in order to more closely resemble Malin Akerman. Who'd have guessed that Facebook, of all the beloved services, could be capable of such a needlessly lousy facelift?

I think web historians can mark down March 13, 2009 as "the day they broke Facebook." Not that it's easy to pin it down to one date, because some users started getting shifted over a day or two earlier to "New Facebook." (Allusion to "New Coke" intentional.) But there's something unluckily apt about Friday the 13th being the completion date for everyone's home page involuntarily giving way to... The Change. (Menopausal allusion also intentional.) From every indication I can gauge, the reaction among Facebook partisans has been overwhelmingly blistering, making me wonder if they did any kind of market research at all that didn't involve sampling groups made up entirely of Twitter triumphalists. Earth to 24-year-old Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: As of last month, Twitter was getting 54 million monthly visits, which sounds impressive, except that this genius thing you invented was getting almost almost 1.2 billion visits--or, in other words, was still about 20 times as popular as the nascent challenger. Remind us again, Mark, what it was you didn't like about that math?

Scrolling through all my friends' status updates in one 24-hour period between midnight Friday and midnight Saturday, I counted 40 unsolicited complaints from my pals about the changes. Some were generalized grumbling: "Bill Holdship wonders why the geniuses at Facebook felt the need to fix something that wasn't broken"... "Carla DeSantis wants the old Fecebook back! This one stinks"... "Mike Denneen thinks that when you have an update that 150 million users weren't waiting for, you ought to get it right the first time"... "Alison Bracker is thinking that if she wanted to be on Twitter, she'd be on Twitter"... "Mark Harris is glad to see that the plunging economy has not affected the gratuitous-redesign industry." And so on.

So my friends are naturally resistant to any change and, as former senator Phil Gramm would surely say, we're really just a nation of whiners... right? Not really--the complaints get pretty precise. Using my status update to poll pals about any specific objections they had to the remade Facebook, I was quickly besieged by dozens of very detailed responses. Some had to do with cosmetic changes like fonts and layout, to be sure. But what came through most clearly was that Facebook had broken a cardinal rule of business: When in doubt, offer the consumer more choices, not fewer. The new Facebook eliminates a good number of the channels users could formerly choose to receive information about their friends, in favor of diminished options and a bland, filterless uniformity. "My selectivity is gone," said one friend, Lesley Bracker, "now controlled by Facebook."

Why did Facebook take away so many of the options that users loved? That's easy--they want you to focus on your home page's main "stream," because, um... it'll remind you of Twitter's singular stream of info? It's difficult to catalogue all the ironies here. In some ways, Facebook and Twitter have long provided the same service, with FB's "status updates" being equivalent to the younger service's 140-character "tweets." The difference was, that's one of seemingly about a hundred things Facebook offered, whereas that's pretty much the only thing Twitter does. Rather than relish in the diversity of choices it gave users, though, Facebook is forcing everything into the same channel, and then trying to make these items look as indistinguishable from one another as possible. Links look like status updates look like wall posts look like wall-post responses--and with every tiny or large item now accompanied by a superfluous user photo, they all look like tweets.

What else is bugging my Facebook friends (who tend to be involved in the publishing, movie, and music industries, with some token teenagers mixed in)? Let them count the ways...

* Now gone is one of Facebook's most compelling features: the "live feed," which let users watch everything their friends did on the site, as they did it, instantaneously. To quote one friend of a friend: "'Live Feed' was my TV alternative. It was fascinating to watch. And even though they're touting this new FB 'Home' page as a real-time update, it does NOT automatically update itself." Even now, Facebook's help page continues to make this illusory promise: "The stream shows you all posts from your friends in real-time." Another friend used her status update to rebut that one: "Gayle Fine thinks someone needs to explain to Facebook that 'real-time' is only real time when you don't have to hit any buttons to refresh."

* Also missing is the ability to look at your friends' status updates as a distinct list, without having links or wall posts or other data mixed in. The scroll of status updates was always my first Facebook go-to. Yes, they're very similar to Twitter's tweets, but there was something about Facebook's elegant typography and layout that encouraged users to intermittently indulge in philosophical haiku or droll bon mots--as opposed to the constant barrage of overinformational "About to scratch myself" posts that Twitter seems to encourage.

* As far as I can tell, everyone hates having user photos show up alongside each link or wall post as well as status update--with the corners shaved off, like the tacky matte prints you or your parents used to pick up from the Fotomat in the 1970s. One of my friends made a different comparison: "James Sposto wonders, why are my corners rounded? That's so 2003--we all look like State Farm logos. (Believe me, I know.)" Another friend used his update to try to lobby for a mass demonstration: "Mark Philip Venema says: Join me in posting a blank thumbnail as an official protest so we can thumb our noses at FB's over-thumbnailing."

* As for the uniformity of type styles: "Ty Visconti thinks the big print is like playing bridge with the blue hairs. BINGO!!!!!" But in the interest, I did have a bare handful of friends who expressed neutrality about the changes, including this brave soul: "Ari Karpel isn't fazed by the new F'book look. So, the font is bigger. He's old anyway." So there's at least one demographic that's satisfied with the changes, then: Everyone who'd been hankering all along for "Facebook: Large Type Edition."

• "The feed no longer tells you when friends add new friends," writes journalist-pal Roy Rivenburg, "which was one of the main ways I discovered new friends. And it doesn't tell you when people join groups, etc. The 'Highlights' thing is useless -- not reader-friendly and rarely seems to change, so easily ignored." The "Highlights" referred to here--which is not for children, but ought to be--is the narrower column to the right of the main stream, which contains a mixture of... well, honestly, I'm still not sure what. It's where advertisements appear, along with a completely random mixture of other alerts that you used to be able to look up as a separate category. (Right now, my "Highlights" column is ironically informing me that five of my friends joined the group "The New Facebook Layout Sucks!," right below an invitation to "Become a Fan of Papa John's Pizza.")

* "Previously," my friend Jan Breslauer wrote me, "you had to go to a person's page to see something else someone posted on their wall, building in a level of semi-privacy. Now it's all part of the same grabbag feed. I am now disinclined to post any status updates or write on anyone's wall."

* "Someone posted 30 photos last night...and every single photo registered separately on my home page," griped one friend. Groused another: "A friend of mine sent a reminder to 11 people to 'Support Quincy Jones' Call for A Secretary of the Arts.' And all 11 reminders showed up in my feed. I don't want to block this friend from my feed, but I also don't want to see all 11 posts. It's ridiculous." Jen Grisé Ferentzy chimed in: "There will be a negative impact on charities, too. I used to go to the 'Lil Green Patch' once a week and spend 15 minutes giving plants/tending gardens (which donates to rainforest). I won't now because the newsfeed in that quantity would make everyone delete me!"

* Writes my friend Bracker, "Here's something new: it wouldn't let me send a private message containing a link without typing a code first--and not once, but twice!! Like I was buying from Ticketmaster, or something."

* As for games, fuggehdaboutit. It looks like Facebook has, unless they're just doing a really good job of hiding 'em. Evan Serpick devoted his status update to asking, "How do i see/get to my applications --I need Scramble!" Similarly: "Anne Hurley just wants to know where Word Twist is! I love you guys, but don't hide my games."

Wait, did you hear that: "I love you guys, but..."? Implicit in all this reproof is the idea that users feel let down by something with which they'd fallen hopelessly and intractably in lust. More than one of my friends even used the "B"-word: "I'm not using it as much because I hate the way it looks. I feel betrayed." It'd become so much a part of our lives that some of my friends feel like they've been disappointed by... dare we say it?... a friend. "Zuckerberg (AND his roommate) created Facebook," writes my friend Mark Hanser. "But he's immature and over his head. When something grows so large and becomes such a shared experience, it becomes a covenant. And once a covenant of millions concurs, the guy the created it can't go changing the previously agreed-upon conventions that everyone seemingly knows, uses and loves."

Well, yes he can, actually. Facebook is privately owned, not a governmentally controlled trust. It's free, too, so it's not as if we can threaten to take our subscription dollars elsewhere. As Ruben Pla wrote on a friend's page, "Never look a gift horse in the Facebook." I got to wondering a while ago what would happen if something so many of us have come to think of as almost like another appendage were to suddenly get arbitrarily amputated. Would we all collectively move over to another site--as some threatened to do during the recent "terms of service" controversy--or would this unlikely national community of tens of millions simply disperse and go back to bowling alone, as it were? It hasn't come to that; I don't know anyone who's actually dropped out. Most of us will stick with Facebook, to some degree, even if the service becomes two-faced, shitfaced, or simply faceless.

But as my friend Nick Redman writes: "It must be galling for the folks at FB to have news anchors and other assorted TV people constantly tweeting on air and pushing it, since these changes are a rather desperate attempt to Twitterize FB. It's a shame because the humor and uniqueness have been diluted, and once something ceases to be fun, it merely becomes tedious."

So, Sir Zuckerberg, please, even though we can't quit you, face up to the mass discontent and don't let Facebook die a slow death from gradual neglect. My friends just gave you about $10 million of market research. Consider the preceding blog as something akin to another popular feature you apparently just dropped: a friendly superpoke.

Comments

[HoolaGirl]

I deactivated my facebook account, giving myself a well-needed break. Hopefully, when I activate it again in a month or so, they will have gotten their act together. Somehow, I doubt this will happen.

[deltron14]

Actually, and correct me if I am wrong, but the reason so many people sponsor and buy shares of his site is because of advertising. Us logging in is a representation of the amount of people seeing that ad. Therefore, the more people that see the add the more people are going to sponsor Facebook. I must say I have not been on Facebook nearly as much and neither have a few of my friends so I feel that if the trend continues then it would be effectively like losing paying customers.

[GuyFawkes]

You've hit all my complaints about the new home page. I actually have no problem if they want to compete with Twitter, but this is not the way to go. The old design with the live feed actually did a better job of it. And by robbing us of certain news feeds, such as the "are now friends" or the "friend has been tagged' and replacing it with that bizarre highlight column which (you're right) almost never changes, it utterly robs Facebook of its identity. Facebook was NOT threatened by Twitter, since Twitter can only do one thing: the status updates. By overemphasizing it, FAcebook has essentially drawn attention to Twitter, and robbed itself of its own identity. Of course, none of this matters, since FB almost never comments. But if they don't correct this violation of trust with its users, then, yes, I see this site dying a slow death, which, in internet time, means 6 months. I've known a lot of people who are already weaning themselves off the site, just because of the new home page.

[Chris Willman - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh, something I neglected to mention: If you still want to see "live feed," or status updates broken out from all the other data, you still can... on your iPhone. (Yes, I know the live feed isn't really live, on smartphones, since it requires refreshing, but it's still a place to get all the things you used to be able to get in one nice, thumbnail-free scroll.) I'm sure they'll be removing those options from the iPhone app any day now, lest we get too nostalgic...

[underpressure]

From what I've been told -- and I mean this sans snark -- there are no actual user interface designers employed at Facebook, which would certainly explain why each subsequent "revision" of the design looks worse and worse.

Though I'm a filmmaker, I've often been employed doing UI and design for various companies, a hobby of mine, if you will. When the first edition of "New Facebook" premiered last year, it prompted me to write a friendly letter to the company explaining why certain aspects of UI (ones they had decided to remove) are standard on the web, and why their "amazing" new design would not enhance the site. Needless to say, I got no response.

As you mention, Twitter shouldn't be a competitor to Facebook. Then why is it? My theory: it's SIMPLE. It's clean, free from clutter, easy (and obvious) to use. Everything that Facebook USED to be.

What Facebook seems to have forgotten in their popularity surge is the main reason they became popular in the first place is because tey offered a neat and private way to share personal information, free from invasive ads, product placement, and spam. But with these continually devolving revisions, MySpace is looking less and less like an eyesore. And Twitter is looking pretty damn good.

[GuyFawkes]

ARe you kidding? Twitter is clean because you can only do one thing on it: status updates. Facebook's value is in all the hundreds of other things you can do. There is no comparison, even with this horrendous new design.

[jster]

Great article. I hope the guys at FB are reading it. I don't believe any market research was done. This seems to be a case of a senior exec wanting to impose their view of the world without taking into account what the customers really want. As a former corporate marketer, I rarely saw these kinds of initiatives end very well. FB has to realize that they are no longer the "cute" little web application. They have the spotlight on them, deservedly so, for creating what had been a a great application attracting hundreds of millions of people from around the world - all languages and cultures. This top-down approach to product design won't win them any more customers and may contribute to their ulitmate demise. I hope they can right this ship. It would be a shame if they can't.

[ggirl00]

Excellent analysis of everything wrong w/ this new 'facelift'. The highlights area is appaulingly useless. Can not fathom a reason for removing the "friending" notifications. I found half of the people on my friends list this way. The birthdays area appears to have been a 2nd thought; like maybe they forgot to include it and didn't realize until the last minute so they threw it (literally) on the page ... somewhere ... anywhere. And for the love of all that is good & holy, why would they decide to individually post notifications regarding X giving Y a potted plant? It's insane.

New Facebook = New Coke.

[Ken Volok]

You have to hunt for birthdays, and even marketplace. Basically the new design pushes paid advertising over social interaction. Its gonna get destroyed just like MySpace has been.

[Rolfe Norman]

The initial reaction to the changes made late last year were not positive at first either. It does resemble Twitter though. It seems as if they would still let us view live stream as well. The highlight section is a mess. Hopefully they will improve it pretty quickly.

[MintysMom]

The NEW FB is about as fun as I imagine the whiteboard conversation at FB Headquarters was when they designed this.

I'm thinking the UI guy how came up with it will be looking for other employment soon.

[mlrlmsw]

I'm using FB at least 50% less since the changes. Too much information about every little thing my "friends" do and it's harder to glean the status updates unless you just go to the friends tab. I don't know why anyone would want to know every little post or whatever every single friend sent - it's annoying!

[Marquis Hunt]

As for the rest of the charges, I don't think people understand that the change was a positive step in the right direction. In terms of design and structure, I think they did an excellent job, albeit it may have been very quick to introduce this change. Some of the mishaps ( like missing app buttons, feed overload ) I think they can fix over time. But I want to say that many other 2.0 sites didn't change for their growing audience and needs to spruce up features ( look at how bad Myspace looks now as it never did a very thorough update of their services ).

Do companies make big mistakes in changes. Certainly. Can I call this a mistake. Not in the least.

[Ken Volok]

You're mistaken about MySpace. The reason it takes days to load and looks horrible is because "updated"; basically a buncha bells, whistles, and advertsing. And yes the FB update is a HUGE mistake. Fixing whats not broken is a mistake.

[underpressure]

I would also disagree. "A positive step in the right direction"? Direction of what?

While MySpace has never (and likely can never) implement the privacy features that made its users flock to Facebook, they have addressed complaints, added apps and feeds and templates (in a non-irritating way) , all without a major overhaul that forces users to relearn the entire site.

The difference between the two is that Facebook, as a company, acts as if it's "for the users" while subversively installing the beacon and modifying the TOS, while MySpace is clear and upfront about being a publicity vehicle, and so users know exactly what they're getting.

Speaking of MySpace, one aspect of FB 3.0 I haven't seen mentioned yet is the change in "Fan Pages", Facebook's lame response to the as-of-yet unchallenged MySpace band profile, and an attempt to curb the number of "fake" profiles that Facebook was so adamant about deleting.

Fan Pages on Facebook have always been an afterthought, with no customization options, poor use of screen space, no way to communicate effectively, etc. Compare that with the anything-goes MySpace profile, and it's no wonder that filmmakers, musicians, and companies focus their efforts on MySpace rather than Facebook. As a follower, I certainly prefer it.

Well, now Fan Pages are even worse -- just another tabbed profile covered in information vomit. Why should I get rid of my fake accounts again? As the Internet would say, FAIL.

I'd call this one a mistake.

[Marquis Hunt]

I have posted a response to the outrage over the Facebook change. I have to say that I am impressed with the work ( along with the comments of Ramlas above, who is probably in the same boat as me ).

http://adspaceworld.com/2009/03/19/the-new-facebook-feed-design-i-love-it/

My view is the "what are you doing" feed has been around Facebook almost as long as twitter has existed ( 2006/2007). Facebook only took it as a "clique" function where only your friends could see your update status. Twitter is more of a consolidated mailing list where people can freely post their status in plain text ( allowing for great use in text messaging, on-the-go messaging that Facebook couldn't provide initially ).

Facebook trumps Twitter 50 fold because their udpate status, if ever tweaked, can be re-invented as an app where it can be publicly shown. Take for instance, if I was a celebrity. I only want close people to be my friend, but I would like my status to be publicly shown. Facebook could easily differentiate the app structure to do that. They probably won't, because they have more powerful functions that I don't even think gives them time to think about Twitter.

[GuyFawkes]

But any celebrity (or anyone else) CAN already set their separate functions so only certain groups can see it. All you had to do was go into the privacy settings and you can set who sees what. I put people into folders, work, friends, family, etc. Then set certain albums - even individual photos - so certain people or folders can't see them. You can do the same for status updates, who posts on your wall, etc. This was not about privacy, but about trying to get people to stop Tweeting and the media publicity over it, particularly during Obama's address to Congress.

[Matt Schlosser]

About not being able to view just your friends status updates, and nothing else,..

Just click on "Friends" in the menu bar. This will take you to your friends page, and show your friends and their status updates in order from most recent status update!

[Rebekah Murphy]

Sort of. There are two important areas where this is a step back from the "status" filter tab on the home page.
1) Only the most recent update is shown. If someone posts updates frequently, many will be missed. The old feed showed all updates that where made, in reverse chronological order.
2) You can not make comments on that page. If you want to comment of someone's status, you need to click there name, go to their profile, find that update and comment there.

I consider these both to be a significant reduction in functionality.

[Jason Whiteside]

Looks like facebook disabled my account due to me criticizing Mark Zuckerberg! I can't wait for people to start leaving this site in droves...

[GuyFawkes]

Really? I must be next. I've written about 20 scathing feedbacks to them. Though I doubt they ever get read, just goes into a black hole of Zuckerberg's trash can.